STATE OF GUJARATversusNARVATBHAI MOHANBHAI BARIYA

     C/SCA/11745/2024                                 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11745 of 2024


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-

==========================================================

             Approved for Reporting                  Yes          No
                                                                  No
==========================================================
                          STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                                   Versus
                        NARVATBHAI MOHANBHAI BARIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR PARESH J BRAHMBHATT(9788) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                               Date : 17/02/2026
                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1.     Rule       returnable    forthwith.        Learned    Advocate         Mr.
Brahmbhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondent.

2. Present petition is         led by the petitioner under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions of
Industrial Disputes Act challenging the impugned award
dated 10.04.2018 in Reference (T) No.130 of 2010 passed by
the Labour Court, Godhra, whereby the Labour Court has
awarded reinstatement without any backwages.


3. Facts of the case are that the respondent was working, as a


                                    Page 1 of 6
  C/SCA/11745/2024                         JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




Watchman with the petitioner from 1993 and drawing monthly
salary of Rs.700/-. In April 1997, the respondent was orally
and arbitrarily discharged from service by the petitioner
without following due procedure. Being aggrieved with the
said termination, the workman raised an industrial dispute
before the Labour Court, and the Labour Court, vide order
dated 10.4.2018 awarded the aforementioned relief.


3.1 Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court,
the petitioner has preferred present petition.


4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the petitioner has submitted the
same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has
submitted that the impugned order passed by the labour
Court is wholly erroneous, bad in law and contrary to the facts
and records of the case. She has submitted that the
respondent had worked for 240 days only for single year and
therefore, the respondent cannot be given the bene t of
regular employee. She has submitted that the labour Court
has passed the impugned order without application of mind
and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and present petition deserves to be allowed.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned counsel for the
respondent has objected the petition and submitted that the
Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the
impugned order. He has submitted that infact the impugned
award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the


                            Page 2 of 6
   C/SCA/11745/2024                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




provisions of law and hence prayed for rejection of the
petition.


7. Considering the submissions canvassed by learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties and the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Labour Court, it appears
that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
while coming to the conclusion and without there being any
rebuttal, on the other hand, the Labour Court has awarded
aforesaid relief. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme         Court   in   the     case        of   Maharashtra           State
Cooperative           Marketing      Federation           Limited         Versus
Suresh S/o Dadarao Gadge reported in (2015) 4 SCC 542
and the oral order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 908 of
2023 and allied appeals more particularly para – 10 and the
order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1091 of 2023 and
allied appeals more particularly paras – 5 and 6, this Court is
of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved, if
lump sum compensation is awarded in favour of the workman
in lieu of reinstatement and all other consequential bene ts.


8. The relevant para – 10 of the oral order dated 18.04.2024
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 908 of 2023 and allied appeals reads thus:-
        “10. Having come to the conclusion that the lump sum
        compensation would be appropriate remedy for the
        families of the deceased workmen, the other aspects
        which comes for consideration is quantum of lump sum
        compensation. Though learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has



                                   Page 3 of 6
  C/SCA/11745/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




       contended that there was delay in preferring the
       complaint and the subsequent reference, it can be
       observed from the pleadings that the averments with
       regard to delay and laches in preferring the reference
       were not made before the Labour Court as well as the
       learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument of learned
       advocate Mr. Bhatt with regard to delay and laches in
       preferring reference cannot be countenanced and what
       needs to be seen is that almost all the workmen have put
       in 16-20 years of service for the respondent and their
       services were terminated without following due procedure
       of law. Therefore, the families of the deceased workmen
       needs to be compensated proportionally as to the number
       of years of service put in by them. However, in order to
       balance the equation, we have considered to give e(ect of
       delay in preferring the reference while enhancing the
       amount of compensation. Thus, while calculating the
       number of years of services, we proposed to deduct the
       number of years service for which there is delay in
       preferring reference. After deduction of such number of
       service, we propose to give compensation in the following
       tabular form:

                 Total no. of years for lump sum Amount of lump
       Sr.No.
                          compensation           sum compensation
          1              5 to 10 years            Rs.3.00 lacs
          2               10-15 years             Rs.5.00 lacs
          3               15-20 years              Rs.7.5 lacs


9. The relevant paras 5 and 6 of the oral order dated
18.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1091 of 2023 and allied appeals
reads thus:-

       “5. Therefore, looking to the gap which intervened
       between the date of termination and the date of granting
       reinstatement, the approach of the learned Single Judge
       granting lump sum compensation cannot be faulted with.
       6. Looking to the various aspects and factors which are
       considered above, like the nature of employment, time gap
       intervened, length of service, the compensation awarded
       to the tune could not be said to be unreasonable.
       Therefore, Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the
       Municipality on the question of amount of compensation
       as well as appeals preferred by the workmen seeking
       reinstatement are liable to be dismissed. However, in one


                                 Page 4 of 6
  C/SCA/11745/2024                               JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




       of the matters being Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of
       2023 in Special Civil Application No. 18334 of 2021 in the
       case of workman being Koli Vairaginiben Ramkumar, we
       observe that the compensation given by the learned Single
       Judge is to the tune of Rs.6,25,000/- for 11 years of
       service. It can be observed from the order passed by the
       learned Single Judge that such amount is proportionally
       di(erent from the other set of amounts which are given as
       compensation. However, for the identical years of work
       i.e. 11 years of service, the other workmen are granted an
       amount of Rs.3,25,000/- as lump sum compensation. Thus,
       we are inclined to modify the amount of lump sum
       compensation in Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 to
       the tune of Rs.3,25,000/- from Rs.6,25,000/-. Hence,
       Letters Patent Appeal No. 701 of 2023 is partly allowed to
       the aforesaid extent, whereas, all the other Letters Patent
       Appeals stand dismissed as no ground is made out to
       interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.”


10.   Now, considering the materials placed on record and the
peculiar facts of this case and in view of the aforesaid
decisions, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and
proper to pay lump sum compensation to the workman, which
will serve the ends of justice.

11. It appears from the record that the respondent workman
has challenged the termination order before the Labour Court
after period of approximately 12 years and the State
Government has also challenged the impugned order before
this Court after more than 6 years. Therefore, there was delay
on both the end in preferring the proceedings either before
the Labour Court or before this Court. Further, it is an
admitted fact that the workman has worked for three years,
and out of three years, he has completed 240 days in two
years. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I am of the
opinion that the workman is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- as
lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and all other
consequential bene ts.


                                Page 5 of 6
    C/SCA/11745/2024                                                                JUDGMENT DATED: 17/02/2026




12. In view of the above, present petition is partly allowed.
The impugned award passed by the Labour Court is hereby
quashed and set aside and the award is modi ed accordingly.
An amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as lump sum compensation shall
be paid to the workman in lieu of reinstatement and all other
consequential                   bene ts              by       the         employer                after         proper
veri cation of the identity and bank details through RTGS
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
writ of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. There shall be no order as to costs.


                                                                                            Sd/-
                                                                        (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/02/2026 13:03:18




                                                       Page 6 of 6